"I would support the Buffet rule of making over 5M in income you pay 30% tax no matter what. Most of the super rich are getting income from dividends which is taxed at 17% and then they take deductions."
But as a percent of income the rich buy less, thus paying less taxes. That's why sales taxes are considered regressive, hitting the poor and middle class more.
For the most part, this is simply due to the tax on investment income (capital gains) being taxed at a lower rate than income you make from say your actual job. The more you have, the more you're likely investing it, the more it becomes the largest part of your income. And please note, I'm discussing "long term capital gains", not short term. For anyone interested, there's a good article explaining the rates here... https://www.fool.com/retiremen...
So, the question becomes, does it make sense to have a lower rate on investment income? There are arguments against it, primarily focused on "fairness", and how the govt. could increase it's tax base. The opposing side argues that it's better for the economy as a whole to keep the lower rates... http://www.nola.com/business/i... https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
I don't know what HRC's position was, only that Obama was totally inept when it comes to geopolitics, and dealing with adversaries. As for Trump, he's said plenty of things and turned around to do the unexpected. One thing you have to admit, he's got a huge pair of brass balls. Like anyone else who's entered the White House, he had a lot to learn...hopefully he's capable, but that remains to be seen.
One thing is for sure, the US did use the alleged attack as an excuse.
You think we needed to wait for this excuse? How many times could we have used other excuses previously?...plenty. It's just that Obama didn't have a pair, and Trump's not gonna put up with that shit. Fucking "red line" my ass.
As for RT, I've watched it before, and there was nothing that wasn't reported elsewhere in western media, just that RT is really good at spinning it and putting all of the US fuck ups in one place for anyone to see. Yes, we fuck up, but not maliciously, and that's the major difference between the two countries.
That's a dumbass comparison. You think this is going to cause 60M deaths?...by what logic? And, you're off topic. We're discussing nation building after a war, not the casualties of it. But go back into your basement and play Fallout...you won't be getting any Russian radiation, because Putin isn't that stupid.
Oh, so you don't like being called out for bullshit, so instead of refuting my points, you decide to "LOOK SQUIRREL!!!". Yes, the U.S. has fucked up plenty, but it has nada to do with this discussion. Fucking troll.
So you argue that the whole thing was a conspiracy to give taxpayer money to Haliburton. How many people do you suppose would need to be involved in such a conspiracy? What evidence do you have...oh, nevermind, I'm clearly trying to pump some sense into someone who can't think critically.
Opposition forces are also not believed to have been in possession of the amount of Sarin used in the attack - hundreds of kilograms, according to Human Rights Watch's calculations - nor to have expertise in the specialised procedures required to load chemical warheads.
The bbc link you used even says that the claim was unsupported. And, ""I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition,"
The ones that every single major news organization pointed to when you learn to fucking google. Seriously, stop being such a jackass troll and look it up.
Propaganda much? RT? Seriously? The gas attacks wouldn't have happened in the first place w/o Russian approval, and you're going to go with their top "news" source for information? I suppose you're okay with Assad killing women and children, and Russia preventing the UN from doing anything about it.
Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town. Putin knew Obama wouldn't do anything when he put troops in Syria...he didn't do a thing when Assad crossed his "red line". Assad isn't acting w/o permission from his puppet master, and the gas attacks were getting top cover from the Kremlin, with claims they were caused by rebel production being hit...what utter bullshit. So, Trump is now calling the bluff, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of the gas attacks, but who knows for sure what the next move will be.
Well, tell us what the cost has been since Saddam was toppled, and let's do a comparison. Sure, he was a piece of shit that needed to be dealt with, but clearly nobody in charge of his ouster considered the unintended consequences.
The submitter should have linked to the original article in Nature that the Science article refers to, and actually has some meat (no pun intended) to it, but IMO refutes a lot of what this says about ritualism, and caloric reasons.
They hunted food, now here's another piece of easy prey, why not eat it? Why the assumption (the article doesn't point to evidence) that it was ritualistic? This is a very poorly written article for a "Science" site. We eat all kinds of animals that have fewer calories, WTF does that have to do with it?
The submitter should have linked to the original article that Science linked to at http://www.nature.com/articles... Recent studies of Palaeolithic cannibalism6,9,11,12,13,14,53 have done much to illustrate that the motivations and social contexts behind episodes of cannibalism go beyond the simplistic ‘nutritional’ or ‘ritual’ label
And the Conclusion of the Nature article doesn't agree either... Undoubtedly, each episode of Palaeolithic cannibalism would have had its own specific cultural context and reason for consumption. In some instances, this may represent a more practical or opportunistic approach to food procurement, for example, the consumption of individuals who die of natural causes within the social group. Such an interpretation cannot be entirely dismissed given that the nutritional value of the human body is not particularly high, and hominins regularly exploited faunal remains that were lower in calories with no cultural influence.
Well, according to this, it's 12-15 hours of additional training. As a private pilot, I had no idea, but maybe you could have googled instead of being a dick.
Slashdot Mirror
"I would support the Buffet rule of making over 5M in income you pay 30% tax no matter what. Most of the super rich are getting income from dividends which is taxed at 17% and then they take deductions."
Not that I'd argue against raising it...but I believe it's 20%...
https://www.fool.com/retiremen...
And how do your deductions affect...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But as a percent of income the rich buy less, thus paying less taxes. That's why sales taxes are considered regressive, hitting the poor and middle class more.
For the most part, this is simply due to the tax on investment income (capital gains) being taxed at a lower rate than income you make from say your actual job. The more you have, the more you're likely investing it, the more it becomes the largest part of your income. And please note, I'm discussing "long term capital gains", not short term. For anyone interested, there's a good article explaining the rates here...
https://www.fool.com/retiremen...
NYT does a good historical story on it here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...
So, the question becomes, does it make sense to have a lower rate on investment income? There are arguments against it, primarily focused on "fairness", and how the govt. could increase it's tax base. The opposing side argues that it's better for the economy as a whole to keep the lower rates...
http://www.nola.com/business/i...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
Oh please. Read these, and tell me that's not enough proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't know what HRC's position was, only that Obama was totally inept when it comes to geopolitics, and dealing with adversaries. As for Trump, he's said plenty of things and turned around to do the unexpected. One thing you have to admit, he's got a huge pair of brass balls. Like anyone else who's entered the White House, he had a lot to learn...hopefully he's capable, but that remains to be seen.
One thing is for sure, the US did use the alleged attack as an excuse.
You think we needed to wait for this excuse? How many times could we have used other excuses previously?...plenty. It's just that Obama didn't have a pair, and Trump's not gonna put up with that shit. Fucking "red line" my ass.
As for RT, I've watched it before, and there was nothing that wasn't reported elsewhere in western media, just that RT is really good at spinning it and putting all of the US fuck ups in one place for anyone to see. Yes, we fuck up, but not maliciously, and that's the major difference between the two countries.
That's a dumbass comparison. You think this is going to cause 60M deaths?...by what logic? And, you're off topic. We're discussing nation building after a war, not the casualties of it. But go back into your basement and play Fallout...you won't be getting any Russian radiation, because Putin isn't that stupid.
Oh, so you don't like being called out for bullshit, so instead of refuting my points, you decide to "LOOK SQUIRREL!!!". Yes, the U.S. has fucked up plenty, but it has nada to do with this discussion. Fucking troll.
So you argue that the whole thing was a conspiracy to give taxpayer money to Haliburton. How many people do you suppose would need to be involved in such a conspiracy? What evidence do you have...oh, nevermind, I'm clearly trying to pump some sense into someone who can't think critically.
Wrong. From http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Opposition forces are also not believed to have been in possession of the amount of Sarin used in the attack - hundreds of kilograms, according to Human Rights Watch's calculations - nor to have expertise in the specialised procedures required to load chemical warheads.
The bbc link you used even says that the claim was unsupported. And, ""I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition,"
Has it ever been proven?
"Right. But since when was "we could not get approval to do it our way" a valid reason to do away with international law?"
Please point to the international law that the US is breaking. Oh, and what's Russia been doing while they're in Syria?
The ones that every single major news organization pointed to when you learn to fucking google. Seriously, stop being such a jackass troll and look it up.
That's a "real question"? Where do you get your news from???
Who would you have the US turn them in to? You can't just put them in a dump, or burn them
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/...
AC for what obvious reasons?
The next volley will surely be aimed at the school for the mentally disabled.
You better take cover now.
Propaganda much? RT? Seriously? The gas attacks wouldn't have happened in the first place w/o Russian approval, and you're going to go with their top "news" source for information? I suppose you're okay with Assad killing women and children, and Russia preventing the UN from doing anything about it.
Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town. Putin knew Obama wouldn't do anything when he put troops in Syria...he didn't do a thing when Assad crossed his "red line". Assad isn't acting w/o permission from his puppet master, and the gas attacks were getting top cover from the Kremlin, with claims they were caused by rebel production being hit...what utter bullshit. So, Trump is now calling the bluff, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of the gas attacks, but who knows for sure what the next move will be.
Well, tell us what the cost has been since Saddam was toppled, and let's do a comparison. Sure, he was a piece of shit that needed to be dealt with, but clearly nobody in charge of his ouster considered the unintended consequences.
Was the job in Germany and Japan not finished properly? You have to commit to it over decades, and you can't do it alone.
The submitter should have linked to the original article in Nature that the Science article refers to, and actually has some meat (no pun intended) to it, but IMO refutes a lot of what this says about ritualism, and caloric reasons.
Did you put blood, sweat, and tears into that? Make no bones about it please.
Really? You call some random Veg site science? Please, go look up the word.
They hunted food, now here's another piece of easy prey, why not eat it? Why the assumption (the article doesn't point to evidence) that it was ritualistic? This is a very poorly written article for a "Science" site. We eat all kinds of animals that have fewer calories, WTF does that have to do with it?
The submitter should have linked to the original article that Science linked to at http://www.nature.com/articles...
Recent studies of Palaeolithic cannibalism6,9,11,12,13,14,53 have done much to illustrate that the motivations and social contexts behind episodes of cannibalism go beyond the simplistic ‘nutritional’ or ‘ritual’ label
And the Conclusion of the Nature article doesn't agree either...
Undoubtedly, each episode of Palaeolithic cannibalism would have had its own specific cultural context and reason for consumption. In some instances, this may represent a more practical or opportunistic approach to food procurement, for example, the consumption of individuals who die of natural causes within the social group. Such an interpretation cannot be entirely dismissed given that the nutritional value of the human body is not particularly high, and hominins regularly exploited faunal remains that were lower in calories with no cultural influence.
Well, according to this, it's 12-15 hours of additional training. As a private pilot, I had no idea, but maybe you could have googled instead of being a dick.
http://www.flyvfa.org/seaplane...
"Revolutionaries need only hope they will not be opposed. Moln Labé."
Sounds like a French revolution. Let 'em eat cake.